Tom Lane wrote:
> momjian@svr1.postgresql.org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> > Re-add item with better description:
>
> >> * Allow ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 to select high/low value without sort or
> >> index using a sequential scan for highest/lowest values
> >>
> >> Right now, if no index exists, ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 requires we sort
> >> all values to return the high/low value. Instead The idea is to do a
> >> sequential scan to find the high/low value, thus avoiding the sort.
>
> That's not much better, as it simply begs the question "why not use
> MIN/MAX"?
> I think the real point of Oleg's suggestion is a better way to do "top N"
> queries. This does not get interesting unless N > 1.
Good point, updated:
* Allow ORDER BY ... LIMIT # to select high/low value without sort or
index using a sequential scan for highest/lowest values
Right now, if no index exists, ORDER BY ... LIMIT # requires we sort
all values to return the high/low value. Instead The idea is to do a
sequential scan to find the high/low value, thus avoiding the sort.
MIN/MAX already does this, but not for LIMIT > 1.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
